Fitzsimons v. New York City District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of…

Background

Peter Fitzsimons, a retired union member, sued the New York City District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America (the Union), the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, the New York City District Council of Carpenters Welfare Fund, and Joseph A. Geiger as trustee. Regina Ann Devlin Fitzsimons, Bernadette Eileen Fitzsimons, and Caitlin Patricia Fitzsimons were also plaintiffs and were alleged to be beneficiaries under the Funds’ plans.

Fitzsimons alleged that, after a Union trial, he was found guilty of working as a carpenter for a non-union company. The Union expelled him and fined him $50,000. The pension and welfare funds later notified the plaintiffs that Fitzsimons’s benefits were terminated because he had worked for Nevco Contracting, Inc. in work the Funds considered disqualifying employment. The Pension Fund suspended his monthly pension and sought to recoup benefits paid while he worked for Nevco. It also canceled a direct deposit for one month’s pension payment.

The plaintiffs sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), alleging breach of fiduciary duty and denial of benefits, and under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), challenging the Union’s discipline. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which applies when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

ERISA fiduciary-duty claims

The court granted the Fund Defendants’ motion to dismiss the ERISA fiduciary-duty claims. It held that the complaint did not allege enough facts to state a claim and relied on impermissible labels and conclusions regarding Geiger’s actions.

ERISA denial-of-benefits claims

The court granted the Fund Defendants’ motion to dismiss the pension-benefit claims. The Pension Plan required a lawsuit to be filed within 365 days after notice of an adverse benefit determination. The plaintiffs received notice on October 28, 2020, making October 28, 2021 the filing deadline. They filed this lawsuit on December 29, 2021. The court found the 365-day period was not unreasonably short and held that the pension claims were time-barred.

The court also granted the Fund Defendants’ motion to dismiss the welfare-benefit claims. The plaintiffs did not appeal the adverse welfare-benefit determination before filing suit. The court assumed without deciding that the welfare claims were not time-barred, but held that the claims nevertheless failed on the merits. Because the Welfare Plans gave the trustees discretionary authority to interpret the plans and determine benefit eligibility, the court applied an arbitrary-and-capricious standard. The court found that the Funds’ interpretation—that Fitzsimons’s work was disqualifying employment—was supported by the plan language. The plaintiffs did not allege facts showing that the decision lacked a reason, lacked substantial evidence, or was legally erroneous.

LMRDA claims

The court granted the Union’s motion to dismiss the LMRDA claims. The court deemed Fitzsimons’s claim under 29 U.S.C. § 529 abandoned because he did not oppose the Union’s argument concerning that claim. It also deemed the LMRDA claims brought by Regina Ann Devlin Fitzsimons, Bernadette Eileen Fitzsimons, and Caitlin Patricia Fitzsimons abandoned because the plaintiffs did not oppose the Union’s argument that they lacked standing as non-Union members.

Fitzsimons’s remaining claim alleged that the Union denied him a full and fair disciplinary hearing under LMRDA § 101(a)(5). The court held that the complaint itself described evidence presented at the Union trial, contradicting Fitzsimons’s argument that the Union presented no evidence. The court explained that a disciplinary charge need only have some supporting evidence and dismissed the claim for failure to state a claim. The court did not consider additional arguments raised for the first time in the plaintiffs’ opposition papers.

Disposition

In Fitzsimons v. New York City District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Judge Analisa Torres granted the Fund Defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted the Union’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the two motions. The opinion does not state that either motion was granted with or without prejudice.